Obama Adviser Suggests Up to 80,000 Troops Remain in Iraq By 2010
Barack Obama, shown here speaking at a volunteer event in Philadelphia Wednesday, seems to be at odds with an adviser who reportedly recommends keeping up to 80,000 troops in Iraq by the end of 2010. (AP Photo)
As Barack Obama continues to criticize John McCain for saying he’s willing to keep a 100-year troop presence in Iraq, another Obama adviser has suggested U.S. forces could stay in Iraq longer than the Democratic candidate initially thought.
Adviser Colin Kahl wrote in a policy paper for the Center for a New American Security that the United States should transition to an “over-watch” force of between 60,000 and 80,000 troops by the end of 2010, according to an article Friday in the New York Sun.
That appears to be at odds with Obama’s public position of removing all combat brigades from the country within 16 months of taking office.
Kahl told the Sun his plan would still keep the U.S. “out of the lead” and mainly in a “support role.” He said the plan had nothing to do with the campaign.
The Obama campaign said in a statement: “The writing of Mr. Kahl, one of hundreds of outside advisers to the campaign, is not representative of Barack Obama’s consistent policy position on the Iraq war.”
But Kahl’s plan seems to jibe with other advisers’ statements that Obama’s withdrawal timetables are more a goal than a firm policy commitment.
Foreign policy adviser Susan Rice, for instance, told reporters in February that Obama’s plan to end the war in 2009 is not absolute, and that he reserves the right to revisit troop levels in Iraq upon taking the oath of office.
Former foreign policy adviser Samantha Power told the BBC that Obama’s 16-month plan is a “best-scenario” and that the reality is he will try to withdraw troops “as quickly and responsibly as possible.”
Power was the adviser who resigned in early March after calling Hillary Clinton a “monster” in an interview with a Scottish newspaper, but Clinton also tried to paint Obama an inconsistent for Power’s statements on Iraq.
Obama later affirmed that he would bring the war “to an end in 2009.”
Both Clinton and Obama have talked about keeping some U.S. presence in Iraq after withdrawing the bulk of American troops, but it’s unclear how broad that presence would be. Obama’s Web site states that “some troops” would stay in Iraq to protect U.S. embassies and diplomats and carry out targeted strikes on Al Qaeda if the organization tries to keep a base in Iraq after U.S. withdrawal.
Obama talked about keeping a “strike force” in the region Monday. That drew questions from McCain who asked, “Where are they based? What do they do? Now I’m intrigued. He has said he will pull out all troops before. How do you reconcile those two?”
Obama and McCain were in a war of words earlier this week over Iraq. Obama accused McCain of wanting to wage a 100-year war.
That claim is originally based on McCain’s statement at a New Hampshire town hall meeting in January that he would be “fine” with staying in Iraq up to 100 years, “as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or killed.”
McCain later explained that he meant American troops could keep a presence, much like they did in countries like Japan and Germany, and his campaign vigorously accused Obama of distorting his remarks.
Obama’s not the only candidate whose public statements on Iraq have been in conflict with those of his confidants.
The Sun reported in a separate article in early March that retired Gen. Jack Keane believes Clinton would hold off on an immediate troop withdrawal in Iraq. Keane, the Sun reported, was close with Clinton and declined an offer to join her campaign as an adviser. But the Clinton campaign told the Sun at the time that Keane’s statements don’t change her commitment to begin withdrawing troops within 60 days of taking office — that is the position on Iraq Clinton still has on her Web site.
Click here to read the story in the New York Sun.
FOX News’ Major Garrett and Bonney Kapp contributed to this report.
I cannot believe the words that are coming out of some of your mouths, and you call yourselves Americans. Most of the Obama bashing in these posts are done with little or no credible information, a lack of overall intellect, and a genuine disrespect for the senator as the good human being he projects himself as. For those who believe obama doesn’t have experience to be president and run this country, show me your expertise in presidential qualifications. For those who believe obama is a liar, you are idiots that take things out of context and allow yourselves to be puppets of the right winged media of FOX. I could only stand to read a page or two into these posts due to the low level of intelligent arguments and lack of consciousness. Some recent good arguments are from Emmanuel winner, Hot Boy, Ted, All American, TiredinNevada, and Roger S…….however the rest of you need to get some education, and if you vote Obama maybe he will fix that for you too. Come on America you could be much more productive if you spent your time doing better things.
OBama is clueless - he just can not seem to make up his mind. Get out - stay in - get out - stay in - For me I am really tired of hearing that he never voted for it - news flash we are in it. That was then and this is now. We need to finish it. Simple
As a side observation - I think it is interesting how the price of gasoline is trying to double since Congress went Dem! Funny how people are loosing their homes since Congress went Dem. Great change huh? That is just a couple of the changes we have seen since congress went Dem. Want to know what changes will be made with a Dem president - your seeing them now.
Thank you for the chance to express this - now lets see if this one is ever permitted to be viewed! unlikely.
Our country is in trouble now. We need someone with experience to go in and do a tough job. The economy, foreign affairs, health issues and countless other things need fixing. We can not have a person without experience only has the momentum like Mr. Obama. He can not handle this job. This is not a game. Hillary has some experience or at least been exposed. she would know how to pick her expertise for bettering the economy, has a plan for health care, has a prudent plan to bring our people back home from Iraq and watching out that Iraq does not to get attack by Iran. Obama has only words no experience. I’m afraid that Mr. Obama becomes the presidential nominee. Hillary has been attacked left and right and she’s still standing with a smile fighting back hard. We need a person like Hillary that is strong, intelligent, and experienced.
you ppl are sick in the head, you buy into the neo-con ideals and none of you i would bet know what they stand for. you just eat up what they tell you. Do Some Research! not a single candidate left is even worthy of a war crimes trial. Maybe just maybe that provision in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 of taking away citizenship will bite every last one of you in the ass. Thanks king george, thanks cheney, thanks rumsfeld, thanks ashcroft, and thank you wolfowitz for making the country i had the honor and pleasure to serve for into a nazi dreamscape
Well, well, I guess Obama is now going to talk his way out of this one as he always does. He is such a fantastic talker and I’m sure his supporters are again going to cover for him. I tell you, that is all Obama is good for just to preach. In other words, he is all talk and no action. People, this man does not have the slightest clue of what is going on, all he does is say what you all want to hear. Is this what you want as our leader? OBAMA DOES NOT HAVE THE EXPERIENCE TO HANDLE THE PROBLEMS OF THIS COUNTRY. Remember he was a lawyer and what do lawyers do, TALK, TALK, TALK until they get what they want. Obama if elected president, will forget who got him in and only go for what he wants and not what is good in making this a unified nation.
For someone who’s made a career out of his “opposition” to the war which he says should never have been waged at all, this is quite ironic. America, be careful what you are letting yourself in for with this man!
The Obama camp did not say the troops would be out by 2010 it said troop levels would be down to 60,000 to 80,000 by that time. Obama is trying to put the message out now so if elected he won’t look like a liar. The Obama camp is all about having a cover story to fall back on to. This is not the first and not the last of Obama having a cover story to go back to.
Confusing message from Obama.
I thought he was saying troops will be out in 16 months.
2010 is not 16 months!!
Obama is just keep on talking. Hard to believe this guy!!
Lest we not forget, we have become “Occupiers” in Iraq. That role never works. It is a waste of human lives and our money. In the time of Christ, Romans were the “Occupiers” in the Middle East, and the only good that came of this, (if you can call it good, and for whom) was the military technology transfered by the Roman Army during the occupation.
In our own country, under our noses, remains a classic example of occupation, the Native American Indian. Native Americans were subdued by Americans of European descent by the only form of occupation that works, annihilation. Even with annihilation, their culture (and I am glad that it does) remains with them today.
After 2000 years, fanaticism remains in the Middle East, and we only give it impetus by having become “Occupiers” in Iraq.
His promise to withdraw from Iraq, a lie it was. Disingenuous it is. Dishonest it is. His high principals, blown away into space they have. Maybe they exist not.